>>98747183
A friend did and the DM punished him the entire time because the DM didn't understand how level adjustment worked.

>>98747183
I played a minotaur. Peasant lasses were quite curious about was was under the loincloth. Half the sessions were just me and the DM doing ERP of her monster CNC fantasies. Good times.

>>98747673
>A friend did and the DM punished him the entire time because the DM didn't understand how level adjustment worked.
What did they play and what edition?

If this was 3.0/3.5 D&D From what I've heard, most out of the box level adjustments seem to be pretty bad.

>>98747887
what did the other players think?

>>98747997
Yeah they're fucked beyond belief and the rules collapse completely if it's applied via a removable template. It's better to just ignore it or scale the benefits over the character level. One of the better methods of judging LA if you must use it is "What's better, this or equivalent levels in druid or wizard?"

>>98748099
They weren't really aware. The group got mostly "fade to black" versions, she and I would ERP privately.

>>98748110
>Yeah they're fucked beyond belief and the rules collapse completely if it's applied via a removable template. It's better to just ignore it or scale the benefits over the character level.
How would you work it? There's definitely some creatures that needs positive level adjustment .

There's people on giantitp who are revaluating the level adjustment numbers for every monster in that edition:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624825-The-LA-Assignment-Archive-V2-0
There's also this additional thread where they go over negative level adjustment options:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629100-Negative-LA-Assignment-Resurrection-but-no-diamond-here


>One of the better methods of judging LA if you must use it is "What's better, this or equivalent levels in druid or wizard?"
The thing is that there's a lot of monsters which are better than fighter/rogue/whatever of equivalent levels. But still worse than equivalent levels in a full powered casting class like druid/cleric/wizard.

>>98747997
That's the only edition where you can actually play a "monster PC"
Every other edition just watered down the monsters to make them into regular races, even though a character of that race was completely different from that monster statistically.
Yeah, monster classes meant you started as weaker versions of that monster too, but at least it progressed you toward becoming that monster, in true form, with its stat block at the end of the class.
The only issue was that level adjustments were way out of whack and overcompensating for developers being afraid of monster PCs being overpowered. Typical behavior you see it all the time with modern game designers.

>>98748144
>How would you work it?
Honestly, I would either eschew it or not allow the monster. If I had to, I'd allow them to buy it off with particularly difficult quests each one reducing the LA by 1, or just arbitrarily lower it if I feel their class abilities and the party power has begun to eclipse it.

>>98747183
>Ever had?
Yeah
>How'd it go?
Fine for some. Bad for others.
The fine ones were session zero shit where everyone knew a monster PC was hitting the table and we made characters that behaved accordingly. The bad times were when we were already balls deep in a campaign when someone wanted to just join in a monster PC. The latter has happened on four different occasions and the response of the other PCs was collectively "Oh, Shit! It's an X! Kill it!" and the monster PC was killed on sight because that's the correct response for adventurers to have when a fucking monster just randomly shows up.

>>98748220
>The latter has happened on four different occasions and the response of the other PCs was collectively "Oh, Shit! It's an X! Kill it!" and the monster PC was killed on sight because that's the correct response for adventurers to have when a fucking monster just randomly shows up.
What monsters were they?

Honestly, in that case you should have some kinda metagaming conceit where the PCs know an unusual PC is joining, in order to prevent friendly fire. Especially when it happened multiple times already.
Some tables would be fine with it, but a lot of people wouldn't like PvP or having their PC killed right when they join the group.

Looking like a horrid monster is a real issue when interacting with ordinary folk, but I will note that a lot of monsters look like ordinary pc races or can disguise themselves as such.

>>98747997
>>98748110
>>98748144
>>98748202
I've honestly found that for a LOT of monster classes, you can just entirely do away with the level adjustment and not have them be too broken. Some obviously still need it (I'm looking at you Mind Flayer, with your caster/manifester level greater than your HD) but for basically every monster without some sort of spellcasting, pseudo-spellcasting, or extremely powerful supernatural ability, you can just ignore it without too much issue.
I will say, Unearthed Arcana DOES have a rule that lets you reduce level adjustment, but that's ALSO broken and far too weak. Essentially, whenever your class level (Not including LA or monster HD) hits 4X your level adjustment, you can trade your next level up for reducing your LA by 1. The reason this sucks is that, one, it leaves you technically 2 levels lower than everyone else whenever you do it, and two every time you want to reduce your LA by 1, you have to get ANOTHER 4*Current LA class levels. Meaning that If you have a Level adjustment above +2, you can literally never get rid of it all without going into epic levels. A good fix (Aside from getting rid of LA entirely or giving non-monster players templates over the course of the game to get them to 'catch up') is to just make it so every 4th class level your LA goes down by 1.

>>98747183
I ran a 3.PF game for undead player characters. I custom designed their undead templates so that their powers developed automatically over the course of their levels (so you don't just start out with wacky shit like vampires' dominating gaze for example). I don't claim they were technically balanced, but since all the players loved their particular form of undeath, I think that's at least a positive sign.

I would never recommend doing something like that just casually or for a party mixing monsters with normal PCs. Do not fucking do that, no. But if you understand the game very well and you're designing the entire story around the assumption that all the PCs are undead, it can be done and isn't guaranteed to be a disaster. It's not for noobies. You have to be an experienced GM and your players can't be fucking munchkin trash.

Other sorts of monsters are far less problematic. Minotaurs and centaurs and the like are honestly not really a big deal, mechanically. If you're doing D&D content, mind flayers definitely have issues, much like the advanced undead do, so don't just give them various powers right off the bat and if your story / setting can't handle their diet don't use them. Basically lots of humanoid-like "monsters" can be mixed. But actual real monsters should not be in a mixed party.

The summary is basically that everyone in the party should be on a roughly even footing for their races. Period. Therefore, don't use level adjustments for races in 3.PF, they're an awful idea that fails to fix the problem for the simple reason that it's a fundamental incompatibility. Do not mix the party between powerful monsters and normal races.

>>98748307
>I'm looking at you Mind Flayer, with your caster/manifester level greater than your HD
Mind Flayers don't have such an ability, they obviously make very powerful casters because of their high mental scores but they're grossly handicapped by their 8HD. You're probably thinking of rakshasa, I vaguely remember them being able to treat their racial HD as sorcerer levels, but even they don't exceed it.

>>98748144
>There's also this additional thread where they go over negative level adjustment options:
>https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629100-Negative-LA-Assignment-Resurrection-but-no-diamond-here

Basically there's 3 options suggested here for when a monster is weaker than it's hit dice :
Negative level adjustment, meaning you get more total hit dice than the other PCs.
Lowering the total hit dice while keeping stat and abilities the same.
And a sort of partial Gesalt option which is stronger than the previous 2.

>>98748339
It's either Monster manual or Savage Species mind flayer that has a Caster level higher than its hit dice.
And using HD as caster levels is surprisingly common, and one of the few cases that ABSOLUTEY Deserves a eve adjustment

>>98747183
We played a campaign once as an all-vampire party. Had a great time larping as decadent nobility and orchestrating shadowy conspiracies.

>>98748307
>I've honestly found that for a LOT of monster classes, you can just entirely do away with the level adjustment and not have them be too broken. Some obviously still need it (I'm looking at you Mind Flayer, with your caster/manifester level greater than your HD) but for basically every monster without some sort of spellcasting, pseudo-spellcasting, or extremely powerful supernatural ability, you can just ignore it without too much issue.
>>98748339
>>98748352

He seems to be talking about the psionic mind flayer variant. The one from the expanded psionics handbook in 3.5. XPH was the corebook for psionics in that edition.

That one had 8 hit dice yet it had manifested psionic powers like a 9th level psion. It had power points, powers known, and this would stack with psion levels if it took them.


It's like how the rakshasa casted spells like a sorcerer.

>>98748357
Isn't that just Vampire the masquerade/requiem?

>>98748352
>It's either Monster manual or Savage Species mind flayer that has a Caster level higher than its hit dice.
It wasn't in those books.The rules that gave it outright casting/manifesting was in expanded psionics handbook.
>And using HD as caster levels is surprisingly common, and one of the few cases that ABSOLUTEY Deserves a eve adjustment

In general, i'd say that if you have a monster pc that can cast spells like a sorcerer/cleric/whatever of your hit dice (on top of other monster powers) you always deserve level adjustment. But, I'm skeptical that either version of the mind flayer deserved the +7 LA, that seems a little too much.

>>98748365
>That one had 8 hit dice yet it had manifested psionic powers like a 9th level psion. It had power points, powers known, and this would stack with psion levels if it took them.
Oh, fair enough I never read expanded psionics, that makes mind flayers really fucking busted.

>>98747183
Whenever I do a one-shot, I'll sometimes let one of my players play as a friendly monster, most often a dragon of an appropriate age category. My most recent one was a halloween one-shot where the players have to stop a Nuckelavee from spreading its mortasheen rot over a series of small islands, so one of the players was a young bronze dragon

>>98748365
>>98748424
Yeah that makes sense. Now that you mention it, I remember the exact reason why. The psionic mind flayer has all the SLAs of the normal mind flayer as psionic powers and one of them ended up being a 5th level power

>>98748424
>>98748439
>Yeah that makes sense. Now that you mention it, I remember the exact reason why. The psionic mind flayer has all the SLAs of the normal mind flayer as psionic powers and one of them ended up being a 5th level power
Basically, but it had to pay for them with its power points in that version rather than being able to use them at will. It's still probably stronger than the regular version since they weren't the kind of powers it would want to spam anyways and it has more options now.

But, It still had the at will mind blast ability that can potentially stun lock people.

>>98748339
>You're probably thinking of rakshasa, I vaguely remember them being able to treat their racial HD as sorcerer levels, but even they don't exceed it.
They do have that ability. They had 7 HD and 7th level sorcerer casting.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm

We actually do get rules for using them as PCs but that +7 LA is painful. Their at will change shape ability means they attract less attention than some monsters, despite being a anthropomorphic tiger monster.

on an unrelated note 3.5 for better or for worse removes their bizarre weakness to blessed crossbow bolts.

>>98747183
Playing a spooky skeletaur centaur right now. It's p.fine even if I have to consistently use magic to disguise myself whenever there's the slightest risk of encountering mortals.

>>98748373
You'd think so... Instead we used 3.5e for the system and knock-off Warhammer Fantasy for the setting

>>98748506
Sort of. It's no longer specifically blessed crossbow bolts, but magic and piercing.
It's also like, a REALLY high amount, 15 IIRC. Lets them be a decent frontline combatant even as a full caster since they're just ignoring most of most enemies' damage.

>>98747183
I once played a Forlarren Witch in a game.
Channelling the raw chaos of being an absolute BPD bitch was great fun.

>>98748506
>on an unrelated note 3.5 for better or for worse removes their bizarre weakness to blessed crossbow bolts.
A lot of mythological beings have ultra-specific weaknesses, might be something from hindu mythology.

>>98749825
>A lot of mythological beings have ultra-specific weaknesses, might be something from hindu mythology.

That's not exactly the case here. It's possible they took some inspiration from it or that it was a coincidence.
In the Ramayana, Rama kills various demons with arrows. It wasn't like they had a special weakness to them though. He also used a regular bow rather than a crossbow.


Apparently gary gygax was just inspired by a tv show he watched:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/q-a-with-gary-gygax.22566/page-400#post-2395030
I'll also note the tiger headed humanoid isn't how rakshasas are depicted in hindu or buddhist myth. Their heads look more human.
This isn't to say it's totally thematically opposed or something. One could tell a story themed around indian myth where a specific rakshasa had a tigers head or something and no one would bat an eye.

>>98747183
Sure, if the setting and campaign allow for it. Usually the player understands that they're not playing a human wearing a different skin, but sometimes they don't. Some people want to play a character that SHOULD be ostracized, treated differently, with suspicion and distrust, but they don't want that to actually happen, because they see it an an allegory for real life racism.

>>98752588
a lot of monsters aren't going to have those issues due to disguise abilities.

File: Morning-Glory-Milking-Far(...).jpg (20 KB, 316x475)

20 KB JPG

>>98747887
Checks out.

File: GAAWWWWWWWWWWWWBBBBBBBBBB(...).gif (2.99 MB, 540x303)

2.99 MB GIF

>>98748220
You have a good table. May God bless your games.

>>98748299
The GM should maybe say something like "people will react with violence and fear towards you" but if the player still insists on making such a character the other players are not wrong for playing straight according to the world they're in. Goblin Slayer is going to slam dunk a goblin baby into a trash can before hearing it out as "one of the nice ones".

In other words, it is entirely the fault of the person choosing to play a monster character and they are consenting to being treated as a monster by choosing to play a monster.

>>98755204
the pcs are typically not average people of their world

>>98747183
I tend not to allow it, mostly because players who want to play as monsters are usually doing it to be special snowflakes, but partly because I'm a human supremacist.

>>98755204
The problem goes back to the special snowflake issue. People who want to play monsters (in the majority of cases, in my experience) want to do it because they want to be special, but they don't want any negatives. Look at the flanderisation of tieflings in the last twenty years or so, players who chose to play literal spawn of devils hated that they would be treated as such so published settings (particularly wotc ones) started pushing them as normal so the theatre faggots could play their special race and not be bullied in universe.

>>98756696
PCs are shaped by their world, if every encounter a character has with an orc from the day they burnt down his village, to the attack on the border fort, to the ambush in the dungeon is violent they're not going to wait around and see if the orc coming around the corner is a 'good one.'

>>98755204
>>98756772
Unless dying in chargen or before you meet the party is typical risk in your games: if you're gonna do this shit, then just say you don't want players to use XYZ species in your game.

>>98756772
>>98756900
Here's a question that came to mind: Would it be fine if a Elf PC killed dwarf PC in their sleep because they had bad experiences with dwarves? Or vice versa?

If you don't apply the same standard on teamkilling to the typical PC races in your game, then it's an arbitrary one.

File: giganative.jpg (373 KB, 1080x1331)

373 KB JPG

>>98757520
Context matters. If, in the setting, the elves have such severe enmity against the dwarves that it's normal for them to attack each other on sight (as is the case with most civilized species against goblins, orcs, so on), and the players are aware of this, then yes it's fine.

Not to mention, monster species are not on par with civilized species and should not be treated as such, which renders your argument retarded anyway.

>>98755158
Correct, but these people saw Mystique in the movies saying she shouldn't have to hide how she really looks and immediately came in their pants, so they don't actually use those options.

>>98747183
I had a friend who played a Turk in Call of Cthulhu, if it counts.

>>98747887
>>98748123
Well, next time I see someone with a monster character fade to black, I'll suspect they are ERPing with their Dm.

>>98756900
I used to play a lot of Traveller, dying in chargen is part of the fun.

Also I literally posted in the the thing you replied to that I tend not to allow it so yah I do tell players I don't want the doing XYZ.

>>98757520
Humans and demi-humans are not akin to monstrous races, it's not arbitrary to distinguish between civilised peoples and uncivilised ones.

As >>98757741 says if in the setting the elves and the dwarves have such enmity that it's a key setting feature then yah it'd be fine, players should actually talk to each other and let each other know about this shit.

>>98747183
These guys look like they’re having fun

>>98747183
I made one player spawn in middle of scenario as animated skeleton with intact personality, except could not talk, later got resurrected properly into human
we sometimes play generic system, you can make anything basically, often players take half something half other
though we had one notable example: we played simple scenario for noob players, they managet to get TPK at first boot camp encounter, then again as orks looted some stuff from dead characters, and then again. Turned out into some dozen session spinoff when one player got to lead orc village growing with exping lietenants and expanding options (think Warcraft), rest trying to fight off green menace; culmination was little "Waagh", succesfull at first locally, got stopped when forces came from capital, and broke orks in pitched battle near their village

>>98762395
>Humans and demi-humans are not akin to monstrous races, it's not arbitrary to distinguish between civilised peoples and uncivilised ones.
Would it be fine if the "uncivilized" PC just team killed the "civilized" PC?

>>98747183
I've played a dragon a few times, an ogre a few more, and once a bastard skeleton who I was told was a remarkable pastiche of Judge Holden. I had never heard of Blood Meridan until my friend, who assumed I was doing a bit, complimented me on it. I just wanted to play a charismatic evil skeleton. Apparently it was my successful convincing of a town to just Lynch a halfling instead of actually investigating a murder that made them think I was going for Holden. Still haven't read Blood Meridian to know why that is.

>>98765790
At the table yeah sure. The uncivilised savage murdering civilised peoples is to be expected.

The response in universe would likely differ, an orc who killed a human going into a primarily human town to sell dungeon loot is going to face a different reaction from a human who killed an orc.

>>98765967
maybe you should read blood meridian. it is considered a classic.


i haven't read it either though.

>>98766951
the question isn't are NPC's going to treat different groups differently in game.

But rather is the DM treating each players conduct equally. Like in a situation where teamkilling is banned, it should be banned for everyone of the PCs.

I once allowed a warforged and I once allowed a revenant in my campaigns. They made the party look like a freak show. It went the way it always goes the player characters are effectively murder hobos.

>>98770191
warforged were intended to be pc races. well at least in eberron.

they are still more out there than some races that aren't typically pc races.

>>98748299
>What monsters were they?
Two goblins, a wererat, and, most retarded, a mindflayer.
None of which hid what they were in anyway and were encounter in non-social settings. Goblins were in the wilderness and a dungeon. Wererat was in a cave. Mindflayer was in the sewers of the city.
100% just walked up thinking that on edge adventurers were just going to chat with them. Props to the GM for giving the players enough rope to hang themselves each time now that I look back on it.

>>98771342
>100% just walked up thinking that on edge adventurers were just going to chat with them. Props to the GM for giving the players enough rope to hang themselves each time now that I look back on it.


Were these 4 different players? It sounds like they were expecting a playgroup where friendly fire wasn't a thing.

>>98770170
As I said, I'm not adverse to the player characters killing each other - but the world reacts to that in different ways - which is something the snowflakes who want to play monsters tend to get upset about.

>>98747183
I played a troll druid back in the day; it was pretty fun, but the fast healing stuff had to be nerfed in order for the DM to let me play. it was a pretty fun experience
so far I haven't had any player with a monster PC in my own games

>>98772628
Ive heard people say stuff like fast healing and regeneration is stronger on pcs than enemy npcs.

>>98747183
Whenever I've seen them it's always been some power gaming douchebag who's swindled the DM into it and doesn't roleplay the monster. Not the power gamers are known for being dedicated roleplayers regardless...

>>98770927
It wasn't an Eberron campaign so he was just a unique robot lore wise. I am generally pretty permissible as a DM. Back in 3.5 I had PDF so practically every book so I decided to just gave the players copies and let them use them all.

>>98773497
mostly I'd say yes; my char had it down to 1hp/turn, which was really good at low level but became less of a thing from lvl 8 onwards, and was countered by fire or acid damage as ruled. Still, outside of combat it meant that even if gravely wounded my char would be perfectly fine in some 10-15 minutes

>>98772628
>>98775081

If you were using the stanrd troll in 3.5, It feels like troll druid kinda works against the strengths of the species.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm

Did you have a reduced level adjustment? because +5 and nerfed regen would be pretty brutal.

>>98775329
it was a straight up homebrew troll race, not the standard with lvl adjustment, purely because of lore reasons and for the lulz
basically a smaller, weaker breed of swamp troll. my char was exceptional for being much smarter than the rest of his clan, up to average human level of intelligence, but also kind of runty. His reason to leave the swamp and go on adventures was tracking down a bounty hunter that had killed one of his cousins to harvest his organs for magical and alchemical experiments, and the tribe's tradition demanded the retrieval of said remains

File: Forest_troll.jpg (110 KB, 400x391)

110 KB JPG

>>98775750
that kinda reminds me of the forest troll from MMIII

>>98769315
I do own a copy, but I've been too busy lord of mysteries to read it

>>98776467
These guys are medium size trolls with fast healing instead of full regeneration.

File: Female_Illumian.jpg (36 KB, 320x410)

36 KB JPG

>>98756772
>>98771753
It feels reductive to describe anyone who wants to play a monster as a snowflake who wants to be special.

If we are talking 3.5, a lot of the typical monster races, like orcs or goblins, are worse than just picking a race designed for pc use. The stat penalties on the goblin hurt. Orc takes a lot of stat penalties and is dazed in daylight.
They’re also less overtly special than some races designed for use as pc use. like the illumians, which are type of human with magic letter halos (they count as a subspecies).
Elans are a race of naturally psionic red haired former humans (who now have the abberation type and dont count as human) and can live forever. Elans are even in a core (psionics) book.


The easiest way to be special is to pick a spell casting class. The druid is a member of a secret society with a private language. One of standard backgrounds for sorcerer is that you have special heritage. Warlocks background is cut out for it too. See also book of weaboo fighting magic.

>>98771342
>>98771751
To elaborate, if this happened multiple times in the same group, seems like the DMs and rest of the group could be at fault. If it was the same player each time id have to wonder if they were being screwed with, or intentionally getting themselves killed.
If it was new players each time, theres probably a communication issue since it happened 4 times.

Anways, the funny thing about the wererat is that they can look like regular people easily.
For the others, id have to wonder how they were supposed to join the group.

>>98773553
Most monster species arent that powerful due to the often crippling level adjustment.

>>98778996
In my experience the person wanting to play a monstrous race is usually a special snowflake who wants to be the main character.

Usually (and again this is my experience) they come in three categories:

a) The dude who read something on a forum or Reddit or our own mongolian basketweaving network and is trying to min/max or munchkin a class using a "build"

b) Someone whose read a book or watched a movie and wants to create their own version of their favourite character (see the endless Drizzt clones that used to infect DnD).

c) Theatre kids who want to emote about how their character is from an oppressed minority but who don't want their character to be treated as a member of an oppressed minority (because microaggressions or some other faggot buzzword).


The first should be squashed hard. The second is tolerable if you give them a clip round the ear and remind them not to be a theatre faggot about it. The third is just painful to be around and their character's inevitable death is a good way to filter them from the group.

>>98757741
Based

>>98779160
>a) The dude who read something on a forum or Reddit or our own mongolian basketweaving network and is trying to min/max or munchkin a class using a "build"
You said that these "should be squashed hard.", but if we are talking 3rd edition, outside of a few edge cases, most minmaxed or munchkin builds don't use monster races. The level adjustment is too crippling.
Most high optimization builds I've seen use typical PC races, but weird combinations of classes.

>>98779160
inevitable death?

>>98785991
I remember I had made a psion/artificer, shit was fun but also made the whole team broken lol.

>>98792182
like the psionic artificer variant? or a dual classer?

>>98778996
In the Orc's defense, playing a full blooded orc does give you a rather sizable +4 to strength. Your mental ability scores suck and you get dazed in sunlight (Which is a nonissue past like, level 3 since one splat added what are essentially sunglasses that just turn off that weakness)
They absolutely did do a lot of 'monstrous' races dirty in 3.5, either by giving them overly harsh stat penalties for LA +0, or by giving them a level adjustment when they didn't need them. The most egregious case of this in my opinion is the blue, which, despite having a statline and racial abilities that are honestly worse than a lot of PHB races, they get slapped with a +1 level adjustment just because they're goblinoids. Meanwhile in the same book, you have the "Player race" of dromites, which have scent AND blind fight AND a 1/day psi-like ability AND +3 Natural armor AND resistance 5 to fire, cold, electricity or sonic (Player's choice) AND are small (so another +1 AC bonus and +1 to hit) ALSO have a +1 level adjustment.

>>98785991
Yeah, honestly in 3.x, you HAD to minmax in order to make a monster race be on par with PCs playing normal PC races.

>>98792923
>like the psionic artificer variant? or a dual classer?
What i was gonna mention is that dual classing those two together is probably weaker than just playing straight psion or straight artificer.

>>98747183
It went fine. Had a gorgon in the group in a Mage: The Ascension game. They took the appropriate perm paradox flaws and I stipulated that they could play it, but they couldn't turn people to stone until they got the appropriate spheres that would let them pull that off. Honestly, it was pretty fun. They were a great player.

>>98799518
most world/chronicles of darkness gamelines center around playing a tragic monster of sorts.

>>98785991
Examples of exceptions are involve prestige classes like Beholder Mage and Illithid Savant. Both of which are a real can of worms

File: 80489.jpg (91 KB, 400x565)

91 KB JPG

>>98793160


for reference:
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/blue.htm

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/dromite.htm
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicRaces.htm#dromites


pic related is a dromite.

>>98779107
>>98779160
So if I'm reading the thread right it sounds like the real reason for pulling the "party ganks the monster race PC" is to filter obnoxious players more than any true call to realism.
In which case its just coward bitch behavior like all "use in-game content to punish out of game conduct" actions instead of just saying no up front.

>>98805992
>In which case its just coward bitch behavior like all "use in-game content to punish out of game conduct" actions instead of just saying no up front.
that's a bit blunter than how i put it, but its what it kinda seems like to me.

>>98805941
Thank you for that
But more to the point, as much as I absolutely hate level adjustment, a racial +3 natural armor bonus is definitely something that even I would argue is probably worth a +1 LA on it's own, unless the race has some downsides to counterbalance it. Dromite does not. Natural armor is honestly probably one of the best "Generic" bonuses you can have as a racial ability too, since it's universally applicable to every character and racial natural armor stacks with natural armor granted by spells and magic items

File: 33184.jpg (74 KB, 400x520)

74 KB JPG

>>98805941
and the blue.

>>98793160
Dazzled. Not dazed.

>>98805992
>>98808990
Monster lovers seem mad, also illiterate.

I'm >>98779160 I've mentioned many times in this thread that I don't allow people to play monsters. I barely allow demi-human classes in my most recent game/setting.

The few times I've allowed it the snowflakes (separate people) got upset that NPCs treated their character like shit despite me warning them it'd be a thing.

>>98812911

For comparison:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed

>Dazed
>The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
>A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.


>Dazzled
> The creature is unable to see well because of overstimulation of the eyes. A dazzled creature takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, Search checks, and Spot checks.

Orc's get the latter in bright areas.